Disclaimer

The content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to every reader. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained on this blog without first seeking professional counsel.

Tag: IWPCA

The Illinois Department of Labor’s (DOL) decision to send a notice of hearing to a limited liability company and its sole member to the member’s personal post office (p.o.) box (and not to the LLC’s registered agent) came back to haunt the agency in People of the State of Illinois v. Wilson, 2018 IL App (1st) 171614-U.

Reversing summary judgment for the DOL in its lawsuit to enforce an unpaid wages default judgment, the First District austerely applies the Illinois LLC Act’s (805 ILCS 180/1-1 et seq.) service of process requirements and voided the judgment for improper service.

KeyChronology:

February 2013: the DOL filed a complaint for violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (the Wage Act) against the LLC security firm and its member (the “LLC Member”);

January 2015: the DOL sends a notice of hearing by regular mail to both defendants to the LLC Member’s personal p.o. box;

March 2015: Defendants fail to appear at the hearing (the “2015 Hearing”) and DOC defaults the defendants;

June 2015: Defendants fail to pay the default amount and DOL enters judgment that tacks on additional fees and penalties;

February 2016: DOL files suit in Illinois Chancery Court to enforce the June 2015 administrative judgment;

March 2016, May 2016: Defendants respectively appear through counsel and move to dismiss the case for improper service of the 2015 Hearing notice;

June – July 2016: DOL concedes that service was deficient on the LLC defendant (the security company) and voluntarily dismisses the LLC as party defendant;

May 2017: DOL’s motion for summary judgment granted;

June 2017: LLC Member appeals.

TheAnalysis

The main issue on appeal was whether the DOL gave proper notice of the 2015 Hearing. It did not.

Under the law, lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time; even past the 35-day window to challenge an agency’s decision under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-103.

Section 50 of the LLC Act provides that an LLC must be served (1) via its registered agent or (2) the Secretary of State under limited circumstances.

Secretary of State service on an LLC is proper where (1) the LLC fails to appoint or maintain a registered agent in Illinois; (2) the LLC’s registered agent cannot be found with reasonable diligence at either the LLC’s registered office or its principal place of business; OR (3) when the LLC has been dissolved, the conditions of (1) and (2) above exist, and suit is brought within 5 years after issuance of a certificate of dissolution or filing of a judgment of dissolution. 805 ILCS 180/1-50(a), (b)(1-3).

Here, the DOL mailed notice of the 2015 Hearing to the wrong party: it only notified the LLC Member. It did not serve the notice on the LLC’s registered agent or through the Secretary of State. As a result, the LLC was not properly served in the underlying wage proceeding.

The DOL argued that since the LLC Member was also sued as an individual “employer” under Sections 2 and 13 of the Act, service of the 2015 Hearing on the LLC Member was valid.

The Court disagreed. Under Sections 2 and 13 of the Act, an employer can be liable for its own violations and acts committed by its agents and corporate officers or agents can be liable where they “knowingly permit” an employer to violate the Act.

Corporate officers who have “operational control” of a business are deemed employers under the Act. However, an individual’s status as a lone member of an entity – like the LLC Member – is not enough to subject the member to personal liability.

Instead, there must be evidence the member permitted the corporate employer to violate the Act by not paying the compensation due the employee. Otherwise, the Court held, every company decision-maker would be liable for a company’s failure to pay an employee’s wages. [⁋⁋ 49-50]

And since the DOL hearing officer never made any specific findings that the LLC Member knowingly permitted the security company to violate the Act, there wasn’t enough evidence to sustain the trial court’s summary judgment for the DOL. [⁋ 51]

Afterwords:

Wilson starkly illustrates that the LLC Act’s service of process strictures have teeth. If a litigant fails to serve an LLC’s registered agent or the Secretary of State, any judgment stemming from the invalid service is a nullity.

In hindsight, the DOL probably should have produced evidence at the 2015 Hearing that the LLC Member (a) had operational control over the security firm; and (b) personally participated in the firm’s decision not to pay the underlying claimant’s wages. Had it done so, it may have been able to salvage its case and show that p.o. box service on the LLC Member was sufficient to subject her to the DOL’s jurisdiction.

When the former President of a lighting company started a competing venture, his former employer sued for damages under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA) and for breach of contract. The ex-President then countersued for unpaid commissions under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and sued the individual members of the LLC plaintiff for tortious interference with advantageous business relationship. All parties moved to dismiss.

Green Light National, LLC v. Kent, 2018 WL 4384298, examines, among other things, the extra-territorial reach of the IWPCA and the scope of a corporate officer’s privilege to interfere with a rival’s business relationships.

An IDTPA plaintiff can only bring a claim where the wrongful conduct occurred “primarily and substantially in Illinois.” Factors include: (1) the place of plaintiff’s residence, (2) where the misrepresentation was made, (3) where the damage occurred, and (4) whether the plaintiff communicated with the defendant in Illinois.

Here, the court found factors (1) and (3) pointed toward Illinois as the locus of the challenged conduct. Plaintiff alleged the defendants used plaintiff’s lighting installations on the competitor’s website. And since plaintiff was an Illinois corporate entity, it was likely that plaintiff sustained damage in Illinois. This made the case different from others where the lone connection to Illinois was a nationwide website. On the current record, the court wasn’t able to determine whether factors (2) and (4) weighed towards a finding that defendants’ misconduct happened in Illinois. As a result, the Court held that the plaintiff alleged a sufficient IDTPA claim to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Next, the court sustained plaintiff’s breach of employment contract claim. The defendants moved to dismiss this claim on the basis that a 2013 Employment Agreement was superseded by a 2015 Operating Agreement which documented plaintiffs’ corporate restructuring. Under Illinois law, an earlier contract is superseded by a later contract where (1) both contracts deal with the same subject matter, (2) two contracts contain inconsistencies which evince the conclusion that the parties intended for the second contract to control their agreement and vitiate the former contract, and (3) the later contract reveal no intention of the parties to incorporate the terms of the earlier contract.

There were too many facial dissimilarities between the 2013 and 2015 documents for the court to definitively find that the former agreement merged into the latter one.

Turning to the defendant’s counterclaims, the Court sustained the tortious interference claim against two of the LLC members. In Illinois, corporate officers are protected from personal liability for acts committed on behalf of the corporation. Corporate officers and directors are privileged to use their business judgment in carrying out corporate business. So long as a corporate officer is acting in furtherance of a corporation’s legitimate business interest, the officer is shielded from individual liability. The same rule that protects corporate officers for decisions made on behalf of their company applies with equal force to LLC member decisions made for the LLC.

This LLC member privilege to interfere isn’t inviolable though. Where the member acts maliciously – meaning intentionally and without justification – he abuses his qualified privilege. Here, the defendant alleged two LLC members made knowingly false statements about the defendant. These allegations, if true, were enough to make out a tortious interference with business relationships claim. The

The Court then denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s IWPCA claim. The plaintiff argued that since defendant was not an Illinois resident, he couldn’t sue under the IWPCA since that statute lacks extraterritorial reach. The Court rejected this argument as Illinois law allows non-residents to sue under the IWPCA where they perform work in Illinois for an Illinois-based employer. The counter-plaintiff’s allegations that he made approximately 15 trips to Chicago over several months to perform work for the defendant was enough – at the motion to dismiss stage – to provide a hook for an IWPCA claim.

Afterwords:

1/ Where a later contract involves the same subject matter as an earlier contract and there are facial inconsistencies between them, a Court will likely find the later agreement supersedes the earlier one;

2/ Corporate officers (and LLC members) are immune from suit when taking action to pursue a legitimate business interest of the corporate entity. The privilege is lost though where a corporate officer engages in intentional and unjustified conduct;

3/ A non-resident can sue under the IWPCA where he/she alleges work was performed in Illinois for an Illinois employer.

After leaving a lucrative banking position in Florida for a Chicago consulting gig, Simpson v. Saggezza’s (2018 WL 3753431 (N.D.Ill. 2018) plaintiff soon learned the Illinois job markedly differed from what was advertised.

Among other things, the plaintiff discovered that the company’s pre-hiring revenue projections were off as were the plaintiff’s promised job duties, performance goals and bonus structure.

When plaintiff complained, the Illinois employer responded by firing him. Plaintiff sued the defendants – the employer and a company decision maker – for unpaid bonus money under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1, et. seq. (IWPCA) and for other common law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims.

In denying the bulk of the defendants’ motion, the Court discussed the nature and reach of earned bonus liability under the IWPCA in the context of a motion to dismiss.

The IWPCA defines payments as including wages, salaries, earned commissions and earned bonuses pursuant to an employment contract. 820 ILCS 115/12. An earned bonus is defined as “compensation given in addition to the required compensation for services performed.” Il. Admin. Code, Title 56, s. 300.500.

The IWPCA allows an earned bonus claim only where an employer makes an unequivocal promise; a discretionary or contingent promise isn’t enough. So as long as the plaintiff alleges both an employer’s unambiguous promise to pay a bonus and the plaintiff’s satisfactory performance of the parties’ agreement, the plaintiff can make out a successful IWPCA claim for an unpaid earned bonus.

Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a meeting of the minds on the bonus issue – the defendant-employer unequivocally promised a $25,000 bonus if plaintiff met a specific sales goal – and that the plaintiff met the goal.

The court then partially granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s statutory and common law retaliation claims.

IWPCA Section 14(c) prevents an employer from firing an employee in retaliation for the employee lodging a complaint against the employer for unpaid compensation. 820 ILCS 115/14(c). Since the plaintiff alleged both an agreement for earned bonus payments and that he was fired for requesting payment, this was enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

The court did, however, dismiss plaintiff’s common law retaliatory discharge claim. To prevail on this claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) he was terminated, (2) in retaliation for plaintiff’s conduct, and (3) the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that an IWPCA violation was enough to trigger Illinois public policy concerns. The court held that to invoke the public policy prong of the retaliation tort, the dispute “must strike at the heart of a citizen’s social rights, duties and responsibilities.” And since the Court viewed an IWPCA money dispute to a private, economic matter between employer and employee, the employer’s alleged IWPCA violation didn’t implicate public policy.

Lastly, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement claim. In this count, plaintiff alleged he quit his former Florida job in reliance on factual misstatements made by the defendant about its fiscal health, among other things.

To sufficiently plead fraudulent inducement, a plaintiff must allege (1) a false statement of material fact, (2) known or believed to be false by the person making it, (3) an intent to induce the other party to act, (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statement, and (5) damage to the plaintiff resulting from the reliance. To be actionable, a factual statement must involve a past or present fact; expression of opinions, expectations or future contingencies cannot support a fraudulent inducement claim.

Where there is a disparity in knowledge or access to knowledge between two parties, the fraudulent inducement plaintiff can justifiably rely on a representation of fact even if he could have discovered the information’s falsity upon further investigation.

While the defendant argued that the predicate fraud statements were non-actionable embellishments or puffery, the court disagreed. It found that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant made factually false statements about the defendant’s financial state and the plaintiff’s job opportunities were specific enough to state a claim.

The court noted that plaintiff alleged the defendants supplied plaintiff with specific financial figures based on historical financial data as part of their pre-hiring pitch to the plaintiff. Taken in totality, the information was specific and current enough to support a fraud claim.

Afterwords:

Earned bonuses are covered by IWPCA; discretionary or conditional bonuses are not;

The common law retaliation tort has teeth. It’s not enough to assert a statutory violation to implicate the public policy element. A private payment dispute between an employer and employee – even if it involves a statutory violation – won’t rise to the level of a public policy issue;

An employer’s false representations of a company’s financial status can underlie a plaintiff’s fraud claim since financial data supplied to a prospective hire is information an employer should readily have under its control and at its disposal.